Aristotle on the Origin of Life

[rrobs]

In 2000 years, I expect to know millions of times more than I know now.
Yet, I believe all that knowledge will still be nothing compared to what will still remain.
How about you?
What do you know?
What do you want to know?

Given that I will depart this earth at some point, I would like to know more about what happens then, than how humans came to be. I believe those answers are in the scriptures.

 

[metis]

I wonder if another two thousand years of research will lead to a conclusion that makes our current theory of evolution just as ridiculous.

Notta chance, unless we slip back into the Dark Ages. The ToE even stands on basic common sense, namely that all material objects appear to change over time, and life forms are material objects.

 

[rrobs]

Notta chance, unless we slip back into the Dark Ages. The ToE even stands on basic common sense, namely that all material objects appear to change over time, and life forms are material objects.

With a closed mind, science will in fact not change very much. All in all, I don't think that it is very scientific to discount the possibility that our present knowledge may not be the final word on things.

How do we know that two thousand years from now they will be calling our age another Dark Age?

Yes we have seen humans change, dogs change, cats change, but we've yet to see a dog become anything other than another dog. We infer the possibility from what we consider science, but there is no actual observation of one genus evolving into another genus. The scriptures do allow for evolution within a genus (God created all things after it's kind [Greek genos]). We have observed one species arising from another, but they are still the same genus.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

Given that I will depart this earth at some point, I would like to know more about what happens then, than how humans came to be. I believe those answers are in the scriptures.

Very nice.
That is a very noble exercise.
I hope your quest is fruitful.
There is much information online.

My experience, for what it’s worth:
The scriptures do indeed have the answers.
But one must be very very very very very cautious about reading with a preconceived idea (possibly from a religion or person).
Let the Lord guide you with an open mind.
ONLY the Lord can give you the answers. You only need to cooperate.

 

[Polymath257]

At the time, they were just as sure of their methods as we are today.

Actually, no they weren't. They knew they were speculating without proving.

Now, we use observations and testing to accept or reject ideas. That is a pretty new development and drastically affects how changes in our ideas happen.

Yes, Newton is very useful.

Not the point. Suppose we look at Aristotle's ideas on how planets move. He basically had an early version of Ptolemy's system that had the planets (including the sun) orbiting the earth.

Once we got to Kepler and Galileo and, especially, Newton, we knew that the planets orbit the sun.

But let's face it. No matter what revolutions happen in physics in the next 2000 years, we simply won't be going back to the idea that the planets orbit the Earth. It simply won't happen because we have tested descriptions that work in detail. Any new idea that *doesn't* have the planets orbiting the sun is going to be rejected simply because it doesn't fit the evidence.

Hope you don't mind, but the scriptures would agree with you. According to Genesis everything was created after "it's kind." The word "kind" is the Greek word genos which is of course where we get our word genus. The scriptures further declare that all the various life forms, plant and animal, have "seed in itself." What does a rose seed produce? An Oak tree? No! It produces another rose. Of course there are many species of roses, many having evolved over time, but a rose is a rose is a rose. Ditto with dogs, cats, people, etc.

Nope, we have shown much more than that. We *know* the change happens above the level of genus, and have a lot of evidence of change at the level of class and order. So, in that sense, the Bible is wrong scientifically. Furthermore, any new idea about evolution will have to deal with the evidence. And that means that it *has* to allow for change above the genus level.

Now, it is quite possible that the details will change. We may find more mechanisms and more variants than we know of today. that is even likely.

But that species change over time and can produce new orders and classes is firmly established enough that no new theory will be accepted that can't deal with that evidence.

The upshot; while the scriptures allow for evolution with a genus, it does not speak to one genus coming from some other genus.

And, in that the Bible is wrong. Sorry, but if you want to use science, this simply isn't a debatable point any longer (and has not been for well over 100 years).

 

[Polymath257]

I suppose each generation thinks they, "have finally arrived."

I don't know of any scientist that thinks we have 'arrived'. Our ignorance is very apparent to those people who are working to get answers.

But that doesn't mean we will give up the answers we have found. new theories have to at least explain why the previous theory worked to the extent that it did.

So, Newtonian physics works very well. it isn't perfect, but Einstein's ideas show both how to extend Newton's and why Newton's work so well when they do.

The same is true for quantum mechanics. It shows how Newtonian ideas went wrong and why they are good approximations.

The problem with rejecting evolution (large scale changes in species over time) is that the evidence is overwhelming and the previous, rejected description was the one from the Bible. And those who investigated things 200 years ago mostly thought the Bible would be an accurate source. They found out that it is not. They went through several stages of attempting to save the Biblical stories, but ultimately failed to do so.

 

[Quintessence]

Did Aristotle consider his ideas science or philosophy? I do believe he was considered both, so we don't really know from which perspective he made his statements.

Modern science as we understand it did not not begin until the 19th century. As such, it is doubtful that Aristotle could have considered themselves a scientist in a way that resembles what we mean by that today. Natural philosophy is a philosophical study of nature and the universe rather than a scientific one, albeit it is considered a precursor to modern science. In any case, I'm sure experts in classical studies have asked and answered this question more definitively, I'm just not that person.

Is it not possible that our scientific method has limitations that some new method developed in the next 2,000 years will make it look just as quaint as we see Aristotle?

Well, the sciences are already inherently limited - it's what allows them to be what they are. The sciences are a way of knowing bound by particular standards such that it cannot investigate or consider anything outside of those standards. Whether or not that makes modern science "quaint" is up to you and your own value judgements. In any case, we can smack something we don't like with "that's quaint" if we disagree with it regardless and all that exposes is our own biases and cultural norms, not the value of that which we demean.

There is also a huge difference between observing gravity and observing evolution. Not having seen an actual mutation from one genus to another, all we can do is create models and make inferences. Gravity is easy enough to see. Don't even need any test tubes or flasks to see gravity at work.

... there's not really a huge difference, but let's not derail the thread into that. All I'll point out is that if you have been remotely paying attention to the news lately about infectious diseases, that's observing evolution in action.

 

[Polymath257]

With a closed mind, science will in fact not change very much. All in all, I don't think that it is very scientific to discount the possibility that our present knowledge may not be the final word on things.

I'll be clear and say our current knowledge is certainly NOT the final word.

But, in spite of this, I can clearly state that no future discoveries in science will overturn the idea that planets orbit the sun and replace it by planets orbiting the Earth.

In exactly the same way, no future discoveries of science are going to overturn the idea that species change over time in major ways and replace it by limited change as suggested by those attempting to save the Biblical viewpoint.

How do we know that two thousand years from now they will be calling our age another Dark Age?

For the same reason we don't call Aristotle's time a Dark Age even though Aristotle was wrong about almost everything.

Yes we have seen humans change, dogs change, cats change, but we've yet to see a dog become anything other than another dog. We infer the possibility from what we consider science, but there is no actual observation of one genus evolving into another genus. The scriptures do allow for evolution within a genus (God created all things after it's kind [Greek genos]). We have observed one species arising from another, but they are still the same genus.

Perhaps you should learn more about what the modern theory of evolution actually says instead of trying to shoot down a straw man?

If a dog gave birth to anything other than a dog, the modern theory of evolution would be shown to be *wrong*. This is true even though it is quite possible that dogs will evolve into new types that we would not currently recognize as dogs.

 

[rrobs]

Very nice.
That is a very noble exercise.
I hope your quest is fruitful.
There is much information online.

My experience, for what it’s worth:
The scriptures do indeed have the answers.
But one must be very very very very very cautious about reading with a preconceived idea (possibly from a religion or person).
Let the Lord guide you with an open mind.
ONLY the Lord can give you the answers. You only need to cooperate.

Good advice! Thanks.

 

[Quintessence]

If a dog gave birth to anything other than a dog, the modern theory of evolution would be shown to be *wrong*.

Oh great, now some grad student is going to get the bright idea to implant a cat embryo in a dog...



(honesty, if that actually worked it would not only be pretty funny but kind of groundbreaking)

 

[rrobs]

Actually, no they weren't. They knew they were speculating without proving.

Now, we use observations and testing to accept or reject ideas. That is a pretty new development and drastically affects how changes in our ideas happen.



Not the point. Suppose we look at Aristotle's ideas on how planets move. He basically had an early version of Ptolemy's system that had the planets (including the sun) orbiting the earth.

Once we got to Kepler and Galileo and, especially, Newton, we knew that the planets orbit the sun.

But let's face it. No matter what revolutions happen in physics in the next 2000 years, we simply won't be going back to the idea that the planets orbit the Earth. It simply won't happen because we have tested descriptions that work in detail. Any new idea that *doesn't* have the planets orbiting the sun is going to be rejected simply because it doesn't fit the evidence.



Nope, we have shown much more than that. We *know* the change happens above the level of genus, and have a lot of evidence of change at the level of class and order. So, in that sense, the Bible is wrong scientifically. Furthermore, any new idea about evolution will have to deal with the evidence. And that means that it *has* to allow for change above the genus level.

Now, it is quite possible that the details will change. We may find more mechanisms and more variants than we know of today. that is even likely.

But that species change over time and can produce new orders and classes is firmly established enough that no new theory will be accepted that can't deal with that evidence.



And, in that the Bible is wrong. Sorry, but if you want to use science, this simply isn't a debatable point any longer (and has not been for well over 100 years).

I like your observation that we now know that the planets revolve around the sun. Still I bet that Ptolemy was as sure otherwise as we are sure about the theory of evolution. You know what happened once Newton, et. al., came along. Things changed and, yes, they became more accurate with time. Two thousand years is a long time for our present theory of evolution to remain intact. But maybe it will. I wouldn't bet my life on it, but it is certainly possible.

I Googled one genus evolving from another with no luck at finding anything other than speculation and inferences. Showing a picture of a fish and a lizard that look similar is just that, a picture of two creatures that look similar to each other. It is no proof whatsoever that the lizard actually evolved from a fish.

There is no disputing that there has never been an actual observation of one genus becoming another (perhaps you know one to which you can point me). For one thing, it would take much longer than any one individual lives. Short of that, everything is an inference. I know an inference is not such a bad thing, but it is not as solid as direct observation.

 

[rrobs]

I don't know of any scientist that thinks we have 'arrived'. Our ignorance is very apparent to those people who are working to get answers.

But that doesn't mean we will give up the answers we have found. new theories have to at least explain why the previous theory worked to the extent that it did.

So, Newtonian physics works very well. it isn't perfect, but Einstein's ideas show both how to extend Newton's and why Newton's work so well when they do.

The same is true for quantum mechanics. It shows how Newtonian ideas went wrong and why they are good approximations.

The problem with rejecting evolution (large scale changes in species over time) is that the evidence is overwhelming and the previous, rejected description was the one from the Bible. And those who investigated things 200 years ago mostly thought the Bible would be an accurate source. They found out that it is not. They went through several stages of attempting to save the Biblical stories, bQuaut ultimately failed to do so.

Quantum mechanics...another level of uncertainty...literally! Still, Newton is good for catching buses, airplanes, and movie schedules.

 

[rrobs]

I'll be clear and say our current knowledge is certainly NOT the final word.

But, in spite of this, I can clearly state that no future discoveries in science will overturn the idea that planets orbit the sun and replace it by planets orbiting the Earth.

In exactly the same way, no future discoveries of science are going to overturn the idea that species change over time in major ways and replace it by limited change as suggested by those attempting to save the Biblical viewpoint.

The scriptures allow for as much change within a genus as you want. The only limitation is that horses have always been horses and will always be horses. There are many species with the horse genus, but they're all horses.

Perhaps you should learn more about what the modern theory of evolution actually says instead of trying to shoot down a straw man?

Perhaps you should learn the scriptures.

If a dog gave birth to anything other than a dog, the modern theory of evolution would be shown to be *wrong*. This is true even though it is quite possible that dogs will evolve into new types that we would not currently recognize as dogs.

Well, I oversimplified a dog birthing anything other than a dog. Of course there is no single occurrence of a dog giving birth to a horse, but evolution claims that is just what happened over time*. As such, the very nature of the study precludes direct observation. Without such direct observation we are left with inference.

*BTW, I'm not sure a horse supposedly evolved from a dog. It's just an example that would fit any two genus.

 

[rrobs]

Oh great, now some grad student is going to get the bright idea to implant a cat embryo in a dog...



(honesty, if that actually worked it would not only be pretty funny but kind of groundbreaking)

Would it reproduce? I think that is one of the basics of what science considers life. At least it used to be when I was more involved in the scientific community. I'm not quite as old as Aristotle, but not a newborn either, so maybe that has changed.

 

[Milton Platt]

According to Aristotle, "Life in the first instance, is formed by the inherent energy of the primary elements such as: Earth, Water, Air and Fire which molds and organizes inert matter into living things."Some examples of this idea are fireflies developed from the morning dew, bedbugs and lice developed from the slime of wells and mice along with some higher animals came from moist soil. Aristotle also felt that humans first appeared on Earth in the form of a worm." Age of Life on Earth - The Physics Factbook

I wonder if another two thousand years of research will lead to a conclusion that makes our current theory of evolution just as ridiculous. Can't say for sure, but if history is any guide, I'd say the chances are most excellent that such will be the case.

I don't see how. Aristotle did not have the scientific method, nor modern tools of investigation to avail himself of. He was a philosopher.

 

[Quintessence]

Would it reproduce? I think that is one of the basics of what science considers life. At least it used to be when I was more involved in the scientific community. I'm not quite as old as Aristotle, but not a newborn either, so maybe that has changed.

I was making a joke.

 

[Polymath257]

The scriptures allow for as much change within a genus as you want. The only limitation is that horses have always been horses and will always be horses. There are many species with the horse genus, but they're all horses.

And yet, eohippus was not a horse. But it was the ancestor of modern horses.

The same with mesohippus and the others.

Perhaps you should learn the scriptures.

I know enough to know they aren't consistent with the evidence.

Well, I oversimplified a dog birthing anything other than a dog. Of course there is no single occurrence of a dog giving birth to a horse, but evolution claims that is just what happened over time*. As such, the very nature of the study precludes direct observation. Without such direct observation we are left with inference.

OK, and inference is a valid way to proceed when we cover the bases for possible explanations. The same happens in forensics.

No, the theory of evolution does NOT imply that a dog will ever give birth to a horse.

What it *does* imply is that species change gradually over time. And that is precisely what the evidence we have shows.

A good analogy is the change in languages from Latin to French and Spanish. Each generation understood both their parents and their children. The language at each generation was 'the same kind' as the language in the previous and the next generations. But, over time, the languages split and became both different than the parent language and mutually incomprehensible (different genii, with species being the different local dialects). Both are still 'Latin' languages, but that doesn't mean they are the same, or that they are still latin.

The same with evolution. The ancestor species, like the creodonts, each gave birth to animals that were 'the same' as their parents. But, over many generations, the populations shifted and split. And, today we have all the different mammalian carnivores, from cats to dogs, etc.

Each child species retains aspects of the parent species. But now they are different 'kinds'.

And, no, just because it is 'inference' doesn't make it invalid, or even uncertain (to the extent anything is in science). Remember it isn't only the fossils, but the genetics, the development patterns, the structures, etc that validate this theory. And any new theory would have to equally well explain those details.

*BTW, I'm not sure a horse supposedly evolved from a dog. It's just an example that would fit any two genus.

No, it didn't. And, once again, if it happened, it would *disprove* the modern theory.

 

[QuestioningMind]

According to Aristotle, "Life in the first instance, is formed by the inherent energy of the primary elements such as: Earth, Water, Air and Fire which molds and organizes inert matter into living things."Some examples of this idea are fireflies developed from the morning dew, bedbugs and lice developed from the slime of wells and mice along with some higher animals came from moist soil. Aristotle also felt that humans first appeared on Earth in the form of a worm." Age of Life on Earth - The Physics Factbook

I wonder if another two thousand years of research will lead to a conclusion that makes our current theory of evolution just as ridiculous. Can't say for sure, but if history is any guide, I'd say the chances are most excellent that such will be the case.

It's certainly a possibility, though any model that eventually replaces evolution would have to account for all of the verifiable evidence we currently have for the ToE model, so I seriously doubt that it will be 'just as ridiculous'. Kind of like how Newtonian physics has been superseded by relativistic physics, yet Newtonian physics hasn't been tossed out. It works perfectly well on a small scale, but isn't sufficient to explain things on a larger scale.

 

[Polymath257]

I like your observation that we now know that the planets revolve around the sun. Still I bet that Ptolemy was as sure otherwise as we are sure about the theory of evolution. You know what happened once Newton, et. al., came along. Things changed and, yes, they became more accurate with time. Two thousand years is a long time for our present theory of evolution to remain intact. But maybe it will. I wouldn't bet my life on it, but it is certainly possible.

And I would agree. For example, I also expect our current ideas about physics will be very different than what we know in 2000 years. But do I expect that our understanding of planetary orbits will change drastically? No. Do I expect that our understanding of radioactivity will change drastically? No. Do I expect that estimates for the age of the Earth will change drastically? No. Do I expect that our description of genetics will change drastically? No (although I would expect some changes in our understanding of things like control over what is transcribed, etc).

And, finally, do I expect that our understanding of the evolution of horses will change drastically? Well, we may find more variances, more branches, and have better timing, but the basics are going to stay the same.

Evolution, in its core, is now at the level of scientific fact in a way that the Ptolemaic system never was.

I Googled one genus evolving from another with no luck at finding anything other than speculation and inferences. Showing a picture of a fish and a lizard that look similar is just that, a picture of two creatures that look similar to each other. It is no proof whatsoever that the lizard actually evolved from a fish.

But it *isn't* just two creatures that look similar. We also have the development of each and the genetics of each. And the latter *does* establish relatedness. The evidence for changes in species above the level of genus is solid and based on much, much more than simply 'looking similar'.

There is no disputing that there has never been an actual observation of one genus becoming another (perhaps you know one to which you can point me). For one thing, it would take much longer than any one individual lives. Short of that, everything is an inference. I know an inference is not such a bad thing, but it is not as solid as direct observation.

First of all, any classification above the species level has a certain amount of arbitrariness and we like to keep our classification system nice, so I wouldn't expect to see a classification shift of the sort you are looking for.

But we *do* have a massive amount of evidence for say, the shift from autralopithecenes and homo in the fossil record. This happened over the course of a couple of million years, which is about the time line expected for such change. And this is far from the only example. We similar shifts in cervids, in bovines, in carnivores, etc.

 

[rrobs]

I don't see how. Aristotle did not have the scientific method, nor modern tools of investigation to avail himself of. He was a philosopher.

Eyes are not a scientific tool? My guess is that he observed something and was convinced that what he saw was proof positive of how life begins. He was probably as convinced of that as we are evolution.

Just because he didn't get further than that in the history of science does not mean he was not a scientist. In fact, he devoted a large amount of time laying the groundwork for what came to be the scientific method. He introduced the idea of demonstration (experimenting) and empirical data among other things.

Getting back to tools, I can't imagine what kind of tool scientist will have 2,000 years from now. Maybe something that could put the evolution argument to rest once and for all. Until then, we go back and forth about it. Like this.